DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008535124-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-01-10

000116326

Contested design: 008535124-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 008535124-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Spyra GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Tengstr. 34, 80796 München, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Zaoye Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Rm.601-07, Jinhu Cultural Bldg., No. 1022, Beihuan Ave., Yinhu Community, Qingshuihe St., Luohu Dist, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Prior art cited (5)

Registered RCDD1.1

water toy gun

RCD No 008019996-0001 · disclosed 2020-09-07

Registered RCDD1.2

water toy gun

RCD No 008019996-0002 · disclosed 2020-09-07

Registered RCDD2.1

water toy gun

RCD No 008435754-0001 · disclosed 2021-02-23

Registered RCDD2.2

water toy gun

RCD No 008435754-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2021-02-23

Registered RCDD2.3

water toy gun

RCD No 008435754-0003 · disclosed 2021-02-23

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over five earlier RCDs published before the contested design’s filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division treated prior design D2.2 as validly disclosed and found broad designer freedom for water toy guns apart from standard functional features.
  • It held that the similarities in overall shape, arrangement, and colour distribution outweighed the differences, so the contested design created the same overall impression.
  • The application was upheld, the contested RCD was declared invalid, and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

21.01

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218